according to the will of God; and not with me, as Gellius, alas, maliciously says.
Secondly, I would say, since he has accused us, at different times, of the errors and sedition of the Munsterites, of which we are clear and ever have been, before God and man, therefore, I would beseech him to take a view of his own infant baptist church, of which he is a teacher and head, and see how abominably they have, for years, rebelled amongst each other; how they have afflicted countries and nations with their accursed, ungodly wars, and have given the blood of innumerable human beings, together with their poor souls, to the prince of hell, and have placed them as an offering upon his altar; of which, alas, the learned, by their seditious writings, together with the priests, monks, and preachers, were the principal cause, which is as clear as day to many reasonable persons.
Thirdly, I would say, that in my opinion, he here so indiscreetly alludes to the error of my poor brother, for one of these two reasons: Either, that he thereby would make me suspicioned with the reader, that I, formerly, also was of the same feeling with my brother, or, that he would thereby injure my reputation. For my brother is no longer subject to the punishment of man which he once suffered in the flesh, but alone to the judgment of God. It seems that Gellius can not master this envy and bitterness of his heart; for nobody can be corrected or taught righteousness by such a course.
If he did so for the first reason, namely, to make me suspicioned, then all those who formerly heard me, when yet of the papal church, and all who have ever heard me until this hour, and also my published writings, will be my testimony, that he wrongfully suspicions me; for I never thought of such a thing, much less taught it.
But, if he did so for the second reason, namely, to blemish my reputation, then he should know that I and mine, I trust, never harmed him nor his in the least; and also, that my poor brother, to whom he so cruelly alludes, did no greater wrong than that he erroneously, alas, defended his faith by force of arms, and retaliated the violence committed against him, as all the learned, preachers, priests, monks, and all the world do. I presume that I have merited this cruel allusion by nothing less than by my faithful love, because I have, in sincerity of heart, pointed him and all the preachers to the divine truth of the word, and because I have admonished them to their own well-being. And how this allusion, which cannot have been made but in envy, agrees with honorableness, and with the fear of God, all reasonable readers may judge by the Scriptures and the common rules of decency. May the kind Lord grant that he may rightly learn the heart from which this unmerited allusion comes, that he may purge it and sincerely repent; this is my revenge and punishment which I invoke on him.
In the ninth place he accuses us, and says, "That we cannot prove that infant baptism is an anti-Christian abomination; nor show from the anti-Christian ordinance who was the institutor thereof. It can also be proven, he says, that infant baptism was practiced ever since the apostolic times; long before the violence of anti-Christ, which was yet unknown, or, at least, very weak, at the time of Augustine."
Answer. We teach and practice such a baptism as was commanded by Jesus Christ, God's own Son; as was taught by his faithful witnesses, the apostles, in clear and explicit terms, and as was transmitted to us by their practice; which is the baptism of the believing, Matt. 28: 19; Mark 16: 15; Acts 2: 38; 8: 36; 10: 48; 16: 33; 19: 5; Rom. 6: 3; Col. 2: 12; 1 Cor. 12: 18; Tit. 3: 5; 1 Pet. 3: 21. Whosoever, now, will teach and practice any other baptism, must show by the Scriptures where it is commanded. But if they can not do this, as is impossible to do, then it is already proven that it is not Christ's baptism, but that of anti-Christ, however finely it may be ornamented with learned words; this is too clear to be denied.
But, as to his assertion, that the violence of anti-Christ was yet unknown at the time of Augustine, or that it was at least feeble, is too absurd to admit of an answer. Whoever will, may read history, and he will find in great clearness, that anti-Christ was, at the time of Augustine, in full honor and that he reigned with his doctrine, in the hearts of men.
